Report: Star Trek director J.J. Abrams to tackle Star Wars

Jokes about lens flare aside, and speaking as a long time fan of Star Trek (I loved TOS well before TNG even existed) - considering all the accumulated baggage he had to deal with, I think he did a great job on Trek 2009.

It was certainly a hell of a lot better than any of Episodes 1-3, and it beat out several TOS and even TNG episodes by a wide margin, IMO.

Overall I think he did well updating a 50 year old show while respecting its heritage, and at the same time without allowing himself to be shackled by it.

I have a few minor complaints of course (that don't include lighting), but by and large, I enjoyed it, have watched it multiple times, and am looking forward to the next one.

I've no reason to believe any efforts he puts toward future Star Wars films will be any less satisfying.

Worst case, I figure if he does slightly worse than the theatrical releases of 4-6 and better than every following 'Lucasified" (re)release, we're all coming out well ahead, and I welcome it.

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of the TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in the TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

I think that is the entire point. I thought the casting and acting was acceptable. The special effects were overly dramatic but okay (minus the blinding lens flare). The point is that he completely doesn't understand the point of Star Trek. The shows, even at their weakest, are at least an attempt at exploration of character growth, morality, or even future science/tech in a few cases. There is some sort of underlying point to each episode.

There is no point to the new Star Trek. I am not even particularly offended that it has a completely incoherent story. I am of the opinion that getting upset about the Star Trek timeline is also missing the point (although, there is no reason to disrespect it the way JJ did unless you have a pretty compeling narrative to tell and he most certainly did not). An action movie without motivation is everything that Star Trek is not.

I disagree. I think the point of the movie was growing Cadet Kirk into, well, Captain Kirk. Spock's conflicted nature and resolution was nicely addressed as well, if way more bluntly and quickly than in the series.And people forget, the old series had plenty of action (Kirk front rolls? Phaser battles? Green women? do we forget this?) and would have had much more if it weren't limited by it's budget and the FX of the day. I hate to say it, but a 2-hour movie does not lend itself well to the more cerebral story lines we saw in TOS and TNG, because it cannot be so leisurely.

You know, I genuinely enjoy being a geek, and I like a huge amount of geek culture, but there's nothing that irritates me more than defensive purist fanboys.

Star Wars I - III were not good movies. They were bad movies. This did not affect my enjoyment of Star Wars IV - VI in any way. Abrams' Star Trek was a quite entertaining movie, but it didn't perfectly capture the feel of classic Trek, I agree (arguments about whether or not the feel of classic Trek would have been successful for today's big-budget movie audience aside). However, there have been a number of Star Trek movies that really were bad movies. Neither they or the new iteration affected my enjoyment of classic Trek in any way.

The franchise is not going to be 'ruined' regardless of what happens with the movies. The movies might be bad movies in and of themselves. The prior works will still exist.

Many people say JJA will ruin the SW. He's directing it, the script is handled by the guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3.

The director has a lot of power. Lots more than the mere writer. It will have Abrams stamp on it more than the writer. Granted, to be fair, the biggest problems with ST2009 were in the Godawful writing and plot construction. A good script doctor could have saved that film, but then Abrams would have had to adopt those changes.

I was actually psyched for the film until this. Now, Star Wars is as dead to me as Star Trek is. Yeah, I stuck through SW through 3 lackluster films, but Abrams is what finishes it for me. Is that right? I don't know, maybe.

I expect that Ep7 will be exactly what ST2009 was: something bright and flashy for people to look at and distract them for 2 hours. Any actual thought about the plot, characters, or themes will end in dozens of plot-holes, character inconsistencies, and other nonsense.

Because Abrams seems to think that thinking about films is bad. He just wants to get people to buy into it for 2 hours. His tools for doing so are hyper-active editing, camera shaking, and other modern 00's style cinematography techniques that draw attention to the camera and away from the action. Not solid writing and so forth.

The point is that he completely doesn't understand the point of Star Trek.

I hate to state the obvious here, but enough people in this thread just don't get it. JJA's Star Trek wasn't made for you, me, or any of the other Trekkies. We aren't the target audience. It was a simple action movie made to appeal to the general public. In addition, it was specifically made to be a reboot so that people would be familiar with the characters. This is in accord with the numerous reboots/remakes of other 60s/70s TV shows and movies which are being made to appeal to people who grew up with them. And guess what? JJA was completely successful in what he (and those paying him) set out to do - aside from the lens flares, of course.

I disagree. I think the point of the movie was growing Cadet Kirk into, well, Captain Kirk. Spock's conflicted nature and resolution was nicely addressed as well, if way more bluntly and quickly than in the series.And people forget, the old series had plenty of action (Kirk front rolls? Phaser battles? Green women? do we forget this?) and would have had much more if it weren't limited by it's budget and the FX of the day. I hate to say it, but a 2-hour movie does not lend itself well to the more cerebral story lines we saw in TOS and TNG, because it cannot be so leisurely.

I don't think I am communicating my meaning clearly enough. Star Trek uses interesting characters to create a story that is worth telling, that has some sort of conflict worth talking about or resolving. Show or movie. The characters and their personal arcs exist to service the story of Star Trek, not to just be. Listen to Gene Roddenberry talk about Star Trek and you will understand my meaning. Star Trek is an idea of how the world should be, and the characters in those shows are created with the intention of showing that.

That's not to say they can't be interesting or fun. That is just part of the good story telling though. It is not the point.

Great. He ruined Star Trek, now he can ruin Star Wars. Not that Star Trek wasn't an entertaining, albeit nonsensical movie, but it didn't feel like Trek. After managing to turning Spock emo, I can't wait to see the emotion fountains from whatever Skywalker appears in Episode 7. Anakin from Ep. 3 will seem positively stoic in comparison.

And remember how Anakin's landspeeder love and the Hoth attack scene were transplanted into Star Trek? I now look forward to seeing V'ger appear in Star Wars as a Sith. It'll be presented as the next evolution of the General Greivous line!

You're clearly not, but I'm a big fan of the new Star Trek. There's nothing quite like more realistic physics to bring the world to life, and to be honest after decades of extreme liberties taken in that department it's about f***ing time that physics took its place.

Of course, it could have been pretty much the same even with the emphasis towards realism, but they took the impossibly high moral themes of Roddenberry's world down a notch too. That really does seem to get under the skin of the faithful, doesn't it?

On a side note, I've watched every single minute of TNG, DS9 and Voyager, and most of the original series plus every Star Trek movie multiple times. I know the material.

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of the TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in the TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

I think that is the entire point. I thought the casting and acting was acceptable. The special effects were overly dramatic but okay (minus the blinding lens flare). The point is that he completely doesn't understand the point of Star Trek. The shows, even at their weakest, are at least an attempt at exploration of character growth, morality, or even future science/tech in a few cases. There is some sort of underlying point to each episode.

There is no point to the new Star Trek. I am not even particularly offended that it has a completely incoherent story. I am of the opinion that getting upset about the Star Trek timeline is also missing the point (although, there is no reason to disrespect it the way JJ did unless you have a pretty compeling narrative to tell and he most certainly did not). An action movie without motivation is everything that Star Trek is not.

I disagree. I think the point of the movie was growing Cadet Kirk into, well, Captain Kirk.

Except that didn't happen. Kirk was the same whiny, arrogant little shit at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. The only thing that was "grown" around Kirk was that everyone accepted that he was Captain now. Kirk never changed; the world simply changed to suit him.

If the point of ST2009 was giving Kirk character development, then the film failed at that. People gave him command because the plot said so, not because it was natural for the scene.

kranchammer wrote:

Spock's conflicted nature and resolution was nicely addressed as well, if way more bluntly and quickly than in the series.And people forget, the old series had plenty of action (Kirk front rolls? Phaser battles? Green women? do we forget this?) and would have had much more if it weren't limited by it's budget and the FX of the day.

That's just the window dressing. The events that happen in the film. What matters is why there is a "phaser battle" or "green woman" or whatever. TOS actually used those elements as part of telling a story; ST2009 does them because it's supposed to, not because they're necessary for the film.

kranchammer wrote:

I hate to say it, but a 2-hour movie does not lend itself well to the more cerebral story lines we saw in TOS and TNG, because it cannot be so leisurely.

Four words: The Wrath of Khan. Just because it's got action in it doesn't mean it isn't cerebral. You just have to have a writer and filmmaker that doesn't suck.

Indeed, I can keep going. Terminator 2. The Matrix. Inception. The Dark Knight Trilogy. Hell, The Avengers had better characterization and plot than ST2009.

I disagree. I think the point of the movie was growing Cadet Kirk into, well, Captain Kirk. Spock's conflicted nature and resolution was nicely addressed as well, if way more bluntly and quickly than in the series.And people forget, the old series had plenty of action (Kirk front rolls? Phaser battles? Green women? do we forget this?) and would have had much more if it weren't limited by it's budget and the FX of the day. I hate to say it, but a 2-hour movie does not lend itself well to the more cerebral story lines we saw in TOS and TNG, because it cannot be so leisurely.

I don't think I am communicating my meaning clearly enough. Star Trek uses interesting characters to create a story that is worth telling, that has some sort of conflict worth talking about or resolving. Show or movie. The characters and their personal arcs exist to service the story of Star Trek, not to just be. Listen to Gene Roddenberry talk about Star Trek and you will understand my meaning. Star Trek is an idea of how the world should be, and the characters in those shows are created with the intention of showing that.

That's not to say they can't be interesting or fun. That is just part of the good story telling though. It is not the point.

Ok, yeah, I get it, I think. You are talking about the entire moral philosophy of Star Trek. Yeah, I see your point, but that was product of the vision of, more or less, one man and you could see it's immediate de-emphasis after he died, in series like DS9 (which I also enjoyed). I think my point still stands though... you just don't have time in 2 hours, to do that sort of story-telling without severely restricting your audience, and therefore, never ever making a Star Trek movie again.

Great. He ruined Star Trek, now he can ruin Star Wars. Not that Star Trek wasn't an entertaining, albeit nonsensical movie, but it didn't feel like Trek. After managing to turning Spock emo, I can't wait to see the emotion fountains from whatever Skywalker appears in Episode 7. Anakin from Ep. 3 will seem positively stoic in comparison.

And remember how Anakin's landspeeder love and the Hoth attack scene were transplanted into Star Trek? I now look forward to seeing V'ger appear in Star Wars as a Sith. It'll be presented as the next evolution of the General Greivous line!

You're clearly not, but I'm a big fan of the new Star Trek. There's nothing quite like more realistic physics to bring the world to life, and to be honest after decades of extreme liberties taken in that department it's about f***ing time that physics took its place.

More realistic physics? What movie were you watching? I was watching the one that had magical Red Matter that creates Black Holes that can consume an exploding star that would have otherwise snuff out the entire galaxy. I was watching the one that had black holes that ate planets, but somehow caused starships to travel through time, except at the end when it destroyed the Narada and would have destroyed the Enterprise, until they ejected their warp core to surf an explosion away from the black hole.

There were good things in ST2009. But "realistic physics" was not one of them. Just because they had no sound in space (in exactly and only one scene) does not magically absolve them of every other scientific inaccuracy they put forth.

Abrams' Star Trek was a quite entertaining movie, but it didn't perfectly capture the feel of classic Trek, I agree (arguments about whether or not the feel of classic Trek would have been successful for today's big-budget movie audience aside).

You can argue that many of the failures of Roddenberry-era Star Trek movies were based on that exact problem. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the Trekkiest Trek movie that ever Trekked across the stars, and it is not what you'd call a revered modern classic. Wrath of Khan and First Contact are justly regarded as classics, but definitely dial up the Hollywood.

But seriously, How could Disney do a worse job that Lucas did on 1,2,3? Jar Jar Binks makes a triumphant return to save an old and crotchety Luke who keeps using his light saber to shoo ewoks off his lawn?

I'm a big fan of the original Star Trek movie series (well everything but 5). I thought Abrams did a great job on the new Star Trek movie. Of course it's not the old Star Trek, but it's good, and that's all that really matters to me. Abrams would be my number one choice for the new Star Wars movies.

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of the TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in the TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

I think that is the entire point. I thought the casting and acting was acceptable. The special effects were overly dramatic but okay (minus the blinding lens flare). The point is that he completely doesn't understand the point of Star Trek. The shows, even at their weakest, are at least an attempt at exploration of character growth, morality, or even future science/tech in a few cases. There is some sort of underlying point to each episode.

There is no point to the new Star Trek. I am not even particularly offended that it has a completely incoherent story. I am of the opinion that getting upset about the Star Trek timeline is also missing the point (although, there is no reason to disrespect it the way JJ did unless you have a pretty compeling narrative to tell and he most certainly did not). An action movie without motivation is everything that Star Trek is not.

I disagree. I think the point of the movie was growing Cadet Kirk into, well, Captain Kirk.

Except that didn't happen. Kirk was the same whiny, arrogant little shit at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. The only thing that was "grown" around Kirk was that everyone accepted that he was Captain now. Kirk never changed; the world simply changed to suit him.

If the point of ST2009 was giving Kirk character development, then the film failed at that. People gave him command because the plot said so, not because it was natural for the scene.

kranchammer wrote:

Spock's conflicted nature and resolution was nicely addressed as well, if way more bluntly and quickly than in the series.And people forget, the old series had plenty of action (Kirk front rolls? Phaser battles? Green women? do we forget this?) and would have had much more if it weren't limited by it's budget and the FX of the day.

That's just the window dressing. The events that happen in the film. What matters is why there is a "phaser battle" or "green woman" or whatever. TOS actually used those elements as part of telling a story; ST2009 does them because it's supposed to, not because they're necessary for the film.

kranchammer wrote:

I hate to say it, but a 2-hour movie does not lend itself well to the more cerebral story lines we saw in TOS and TNG, because it cannot be so leisurely.

Four words: The Wrath of Khan. Just because it's got action in it doesn't mean it isn't cerebral. You just have to have a writer and filmmaker that doesn't suck.

Indeed, I can keep going. Terminator 2. The Matrix. Inception. The Dark Knight Trilogy. Hell, The Avengers had better characterization and plot than ST2009.

I disagree with your first couple points, but that's, like, just my opinion, man, so I'll leave it.

I think those movies you mentioned didn't have the burden of making Star Trek widely successful, with all the jury-member-costume-wearing, Klingon-wedding having, con-going baggage that implies.

But seriously, How could Disney do a worse job that Lucas did on 1,2,3? Jar Jar Binks makes a triumphant return to save an old and crotchety Luke who keeps using his light saber to shoo ewoks off his lawn?

Some of what he's done is good stuff, but none of it is in the league of the original 3 SW films. And worse yet the bad stuff he's done makes the last 3 SW films look fantastic - Super 8 was a fricking disaster that made Jar Jar binks look downright amazing.

I honestly was hoping for Peter Jackson to end up doing the next batch of SW.

So it's likely I will still see the next SW film, with my son as he's into it, but I would be amazed if it lived up to the first 3 films - I still remember seeing Empire Strikes Back as a kid so long ago - nobody will ever remember anything JJ did 25 years later.

I think those movies you mentioned didn't have the burden of making Star Trek widely successful, with all the jury-member-costume-wearing, Klingon-wedding having, con-going baggage that implies.

That's a cop-out, an excuse for failing to do more. And the best way to continue getting crap is to make excuses for people giving you crap.

All they had to do was make a solid movie in the ST universe with good characterization and a decent plot. They failed.

I think they didn't fail. I am as big a Trekker as anybody. And I know I am not the only to think so. *shrug*And I don't think its financial success necessarily means we won't get another tv series of the type I think we both want. As matter of fact, I think it's inevitable we will.Meanwhile, we who like the last movie (and possibly the next) can go on liking them, and you purists (who I admire, I really do) can pretend they don't exist.

But seriously, How could Disney do a worse job that Lucas did on 1,2,3? Jar Jar Binks makes a triumphant return to save an old and crotchety Luke who keeps using his light saber to shoo ewoks off his lawn?

The monster that the film Super 8 or equally as bad Cloverfield shows up is how you can make it worse.

Oh yeah, JJ did that twice so far, with a Cloverfield 2 on the way to make it 3 times.

I think I'm the only person in the world who hated Little Miss Sunshine. Also, no, everyone noticed lens flares because they were EVERYWHERE.

That you might just be...

I know both movies were completely diferent genres, but one movie did win an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and the other was nominated for Best Adapted Sceenplay (also won Best Picture for an Animated or Musical). Those are hardly writing accomplishments at which to scoff.

Pure drech. The inside of a Star Destroyer will be a brewery. R2D2 will dance on a crystalline asteroid with Bruce Willis. After the third movie JJ will shrug and admit to having no idea how the story was going to end. Lost fans will say, 'Told you so.' Shakey cam for each shot and running in every scene. Every monster will roar like a cartoon lion and our heroes will have no trouble outrunning monsters capable of 30+ mph. Nonsense plots that will make George Lucas look like a genius and Episodes 1-3 Oscar material.

But Disney will make lots of money and Star Wars fans will die a second death.

Why in the world anyone thinks JJ Abrams has any talent for memorable movie making is astonishing. Anyone remember the villains in Star Trek? Weren't they the same ones in one of the STNG movies? Red matter? A super nova consuming the galaxy? Any logic or science at all?

Some of what he's done is good stuff, but none of it is in the league of the original 3 SW films. And worse yet the bad stuff he's done makes the last 3 SW films look fantastic - Super 8 was a fricking disaster that made Jar Jar binks look downright amazing.

I honestly was hoping for Peter Jackson to end up doing the next batch of SW.

So it's likely I will still see the next SW film, with my son as he's into it, but I would be amazed if it lived up to the first 3 films - I still remember seeing Empire Strikes Back as a kid so long ago - nobody will ever remember anything JJ did 25 years later.

Sure is opinion in here. I've never spoken with anyone who didn't like Super 8 before. I'd also enjoy seeing PJ do it, though.

Also, how were Cloverfield 2 and MI5? I haven't gotten around to travelling through time yet.

I think those movies you mentioned didn't have the burden of making Star Trek widely successful, with all the jury-member-costume-wearing, Klingon-wedding having, con-going baggage that implies.

That's a cop-out, an excuse for failing to do more. And the best way to continue getting crap is to make excuses for people giving you crap.

All they had to do was make a solid movie in the ST universe with good characterization and a decent plot. They failed.

I think they didn't fail. I am as big a Trekker as anybody. And I know I am not the only to think so. *shrug*And I don't think its financial success necessarily means we won't get another tv series of the type I think we both want. As matter of fact, I think it's inevitable we will.Meanwhile, we who like the last movie (and possibly the next) can go on liking them, and you purists (who I admire, I really do) can pretend they don't exist.

Purist? When did I ever claim that the problems with ST2009 was that it didn't follow Star Trek? To be honest, I really don't care about the liberties that ST2009 took with the license. My main problems was that it was a poorly written mess of a film.

It would have been a bad movie if it had been called "Interstellar Walk" or whatever. It was bad on its merits as a film, not on being "Star Trek".